Based on this you were most certainly not riding a bike…
Did they say what exactly in your conduct was disorderly?
The two or three wheels is sems to be generally the definition of a bike, around Oz and elsewhere. Here unicycles fit is commonly left undefined. As such they are often in a grey are somewhere between peds and bikes. Similar I suppose to bikes many years back when they alternated between being a vehicle and a ped but never clearly indicated where and when.
In my jurisdiction (Western Australia) they have been clearly defined along with what cannot be done since 2001.
On the disorderly component, the worry is if it more a case of “disrespect” to the particular officer as perceived by the officer.
The definition of a bicycle definitely varies according to region. Here in California, it is:
231. A bicycle is a device upon which any person may ride, propelled exclusively by human power through a belt, chain, or gears, and having one or more wheels. Persons riding bicycles are subject to the provisions of this code specified in Sections 21200 and 21200.5.
So a giraffe unicycle would be considered a bicycle but not a normal unicycle wouldn’t be. Although a Schlumpf-powered unicycle would be.
It’s confusing and a gray area etc and I don’t think it’s going to improve much any time soon.
By polite, use your best judgment and dismount when it’s not safe. That’s what the law is about anyway.
—Nathan
"§ 4-12 (e) - Driver’s hand on steering device
Driver of a bicycle must have hand on steering device or handlebars."
so if i unicycle is legally a bicycle, then you ride illegally unless you have a handlebar. thats bad news for most of us
+1
uni’s are a grey area, BYO common sense can go a long way to avoiding any probs.
i thought i would note that alicefish made a new thread about the laws in your city regarding unicycles
WOW. I have ridden on the road and sidewalks quite a bit. I have never had any problems on or off the sidewalks or anything. I live in a relatively small town I guess (around 40,000), and many people in our town have never even seen a person ride a unicycle. (its kinda sad and funny at times). I think part of it is that I always try to be conscious of my surroundings and I always try to smile and be kind and respectful to those around me. I always try to yeild to people walking on the sidewalks as much as possible. Just my 1 and a 1/2 cents worth.
I enjoyed your story Leo.
I was able to read it without any problems. Was there a particular part you couldn’t understand? I thought the point to it was: that you get different levels of policing even within a pair of police officers, let alone a big group, and most police are reasonable and it tends to be just a few overzealous ones that get worked up over nothing. The Police ticketing him was pointless but the story had good points. Also the way it ended with there being no more paperwork is a good reassurance for Kyle and anyone else in similar positions.
If only it was that easy to judge, the unicon judges would just look at peoples arms and see who is not waving them. If you could trust that all cars who don’t wobble are competent drivers that would be nice too- everyone is capable of being distracted. I’m not saying unicycles are dangerous but there is not a one-size fits all rule that can be made apart from common sense.
You are on the unicyclist.com forum, please do not call unicycles a one wheeled bike! 
And if you are feeling under-equipped in dealing with cars tooting, get yourself a horn and toot back! It is loads of fun. People love it to be involved with your unicycling- they see it as something different and the tooting is most likely to be saying hi, rather than an attempt to put you off. I’ve spoken with a Police officer about what they thought on cars tooting at unicycles, and whether they could be ticketed for “improper use of an audible warning signal” and he thought it was highly unlikely.
You should feel honoured! Most people on bikes or foot get passed by and not noticed by cars and fire-engines. You stand out enough to deserve a toot. Once you are good enough at riding you can learn to ride with distractions, as you will need to if you are sharing the road.
Glad to hear the charges will be dropped- although it is very typical of this type of Police behaviour- they drop the charges against you but they are not charged with bullying or intimidating, backed by the Police trust that they used “good faith” in their actions. Do not fear being in a gray area, until you cause any trouble it is no reason for them to arrest you with false allegations.
Unicycling is none of the above but could be seen as disturbing to others by someone easily disturbed, but it is not similar to anything else described. Obscene language could be just about interpreted as anything, and may be difficult to disprove if you are alone with two officers, if they want to make up stuff about you it is your word against theirs. The definition varies widely between different states: according to totallyuselessknowledge.com, in New York City, “It is disorderly conduct for one man to greet another on the street by placing the end of his thumb against the tip of his nose, at the same time extending and wiggling the fingers of his hand.”
I get the feeling that some officers enjoy putting fear into you issuing a ticket even if they know it will not be backed up later, they don’t want to be seen backing down.
A normal unicycle would be a bike by that definition- it has one wheel and two gears (forwards and backwards). Surely single-speed bikes are not ruled out from their definition by having one fixed gear. It is unfortunate to be classed as a bike when we are clearly different. Direct drive makes for relatively safe riding. Being polite and using your best judgement is going one step beyond the law but it will definitely help in keeping you safe and keeping unicycles from unfairly being legislated against.
If only we could agree on what best judgement is…
Single-speed bikes are included because they’re driven by a chain. Unicycles (except Schlumpfs or chain-driven unis) don’t have gears by any reasonable definition of that term.
My theory on the CVC wording is that they intended to include unicycles, but later added in “driven by a chain, belt, or gears” specifically to exclude children’s tricycles (which generally are not). It leaves the language ambiguous with respect to unicycles.
Yes I think Tom’s interpretation is what would fly in court if it came down to it. Gear means physical gear. While their intent may have been to include unicycles, the definition clearly doesn’t and it has been this way since 1986 so they have had time to correct it.
In all my years unicycling on roads, pavements, sidewalks, whatever, I haven’t been ticketed. I think I once did have to explain to an officer about this California law, but it was no big deal.
I don’t think a rule about unicycles should have anything to do with size of wheel or effective gear ratio. I know I can safely ride a 36 on any sidewalk that isn’t too crowded. Anyone remember the U Games SF Uni Tour in July? That was crowded! We simply dismounted when it was truly crazy, but were able to ride safely through heavy foot-traffic in many places.
—Nathan
It is very similar to the NZ version except that it says one wheel and NZ says two or more. It would seem that by including one wheel they are attempting to cover unicycles like you say. Childrens tricycles can be powered by gravity, which is covered by NZ’s wheeled recreational device definition, as long as the wheels are a certain size.
It is funny that in their new definition of Unicycle they say that a unicycle must therefore be a WRD which is a vehicle, while the definition of vehicle clearly rules out unicycles as they are not equipped with “wheels”. Also gliding is not covered by the intended use of Unicycles in their definition, as it is not always being propelled by muscular power, it can use gravitational potential and is controlled by muscle movements. I’ve had unicycle red light tickets before and after the changes to the laws and both were dismissed. All of these definitions apply only to the road, and local councils are able to make bylaws for regulating footpath use.
I think we still fit closer to the Pedestrian description than the Wheeled recreational devices one. With fixed drive the wheel is like an extension of our feet. If something is legally ambiguous usually the tendency is to not uphold the law, which is why we almost always get let off if we stand up for ourselves in these situations. Pleading guilty is the worst thing you can do when wrongfully accused!
Not to be argumentative, but I just looked outside and the sky is definitely not blue… (it’s black) 
Not on a regular basis, but it sure is a blast! I’ve only done it on a 24" though. Riding through the maze of people like they’re animated cones. Unfortunately that was not a good example of “model” riding techniques with pedestrians…
Pedestrians more than cyclists, but I agree. I like the anonymity of my bike bell. The ones that don’t look back simply move over (or at least know someone’s coming). The ones that look back usually end up swerving around and being more dangerous. But who looks back when they hear a bike bell? It’s not like they’re expecting a unicycle or something.
Definitely. In fact, what I posted above is too complicated even for us unicycle nerds, let alone anyone else. To be real-world workable, it should be based on speed, and possibly on activity. Fast speed? Out with the cars. Closer to walking/skateboard speed? Okay with the peds. As for non-transportation-type riding, such as practicing tricks or Trials, this should not be happening in the immediate vicinity of passers-by. If you’ve never shot a unicycle toward an innocent bystander while practicing, it’s only a matter of time.
I can see Rowan’s version of this being put forth as an argument if that particular law ever gets tested in court. Anyone wishing to argue that the law was written without consideration for unicycles would explore the less-common definitions of “gear” and other terminology used there.
For best results, I’d rather not see it tested in court. The more laws there are that include unicycles, the less freedom we will generally have. In my 30 years of riding I have done well by (mostly) riding sensibly, and always following the instructions of cops when asked. Maybe I’m lucky, that none have asked me not to ride on my main routes. But also none of my main routes have ever been on well-populated sidewalks or similar.
I am still of the mind that, for the most part, we should follow the rules for bicycles. This is in A to B riding, and does not necessarily apply to practicing in a small area. For the small area, it generally helps to have formal permission to be riding in that area…
my posts are offensive? sure!
everyone wants to argue and fight with cops these days. a lot of you guys have big issues with authority. you get what you deserve.
right or wrong you should just do what a cop says. unless he is pouring sugar into your gas-tank etc, then just move along. it’s really not that difficult.
and that story about the unicycler in the mall disrespecting the police orders. pathetic.
so much disrespect amongst all of you. you would think i’m an old fogey, but i’m actually younger than some of you judging by the ages listed under your avatars. i guess after working as a security officer i just don’t appreciate idiocy and disrespect and people always wanting to argue what’s right and wrong in the face of someone telling them how it is. nuisances.
Of no consequence Rowan - they are talking about the device, not what you are doing with it.
I think see what you are getting at Rowan. Is it one? Or is it the other? One hopes this it being referred to as a vehicle is a considered statement as I am sure that lots of other things will follow once something is given the status of “vehicle”. I don’t think they refer in WA to a uni as a vehicle, in fact I know I have seen it referred to somewhere as taking on the identity of a pedestrian to an extent. I do not recall if it was regs but it was otherwise in a DPI or DTI document.
1 Like
I think that many of us are just trying to tell it like it is . . . nuisance.
Nubcake -
I think you are a bit unfair to paint everyone here as simply anti authority.
I am guessing that you have identified the OP as an argumentative SOB with limited life and spoiling to fight. While this may be the case sometimes, reading Leo’s post he actually did little, but is now in the position where it would be foolish and risky NOT to defend himself. Perhaps my earlier posting, repeated here, explains it:
Just to be clear, I don’t think you are the only one stereotyping Leo which is why I posted the above in the first place.
You will find little from me decrying the cops.I have on more than one occassion, and as I have posted here, corrected simple misunderstandings by cops (and by public transport people). And the response so far has been appropriate each time. All Leo did, apparently, was indicate that what the cop THOUGHT was the case had already been tested in court. Not disrespectful.
That is where it should have ended. Leo does not appear to have been the one that moved it beyond that.
On your experience from security work, I regret that where I live being a security person offers no special qualification on judging bad behaviour. It is more likely to scream jaded “over reaction” and “alpha male” than “credibility” or " even handedness". By coincidence a pair of cops just last week dropped in on me and my large group of friends doing our weekly evening fire performing in a public park. The visit was in response to a report from a security person passing by. While the cops had no issue with us at all, they did go out of the way to refer to the complainant in derogatory terms. I suppose they too don’t value their judgement highly. It is encumbent on the industry to clean itself up, notwithstanding the drunken d%^&kheads that they have to deal with.
Perhaps you could cut Leo some slack.
leo has all the slack in the world colin. i totally understand what you are saying and mostly, or possibly completely (i’m tired, it’s late) agree with you.
my points are in general, not specifically to the OP. apart from what i previously said about the mall-rider who was specifically told repeatedly to stop and he was being a complete non-compliant jackass about it and trying to be ‘clever’. that guy truly makes me angry!
if there is a clear-cut ruling or law or whatever and a cop does happen to be in the wrong then cool, let him / her know… but if you are told to move-along you do it regardless. it rubs me wrong to hear of clowns always having to fight every little thing. little by little society is becoming accustomed to putting up with idiots and just letting them do what they want.
re your story about the cops and security : don’t think for a moment that i consider security to be special. i worked as a security officer and i’d rather work a dump truck than do that again. security officers to an extent have less ‘abilities’ than the general public simply because they DO get held accountable for every and any thing they ever do. it’s an extremely unrewarding job for many reasons. they are not special… and they are more handicapped in what they can do than anything. it’s a job. a crappy one.
p.s. genbirch : very clever and thought provoking stuff right there. slow-clap.
I haven’t bothered to troll thru old history, but Nubcakes previous post didn’t ellicit anything angry or rude offensive, which on re-reading, my post could easily have done. 
Regardless, I am still gonna be interested in the outcome from the charge. Good luck Leo.
Jimminy christmas Nubcake? where do you ride? You sound like someone who got into unicycling and now regrets it because people said you couldn’t ride anywhere.
Sheesh…
You sound like the most self hating unicyclist alive.
The job of the police is to uphold the law. They are not (at least in my country) entitled to invent laws. If a public servant (and that includes a policeman) exceeds or abuses his authority then it is the responsibility of the good citizen to challenge him on it.